A Commentary on the Passing Scene by
Robert Paul Wolff
rwolff@afroam.umass.edu

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."

Total Pageviews

Archive of Wolff Materials

Friday, April 29, 2016

FREUD FOR THE MASSES

Freud teaches us, Jung to the contrary notwithstanding, that
there are no universal symbols in the processes of the mind [“Sometimes a cigar
is just a cigar”]. It is therefore necessary
to follow the unpredictable course of free association to gain access to the
unconscious. For this reason, armchair “psychoanalysis”
of historical figures or persons one does not personally know is
valueless. Literary critics too are
aware that the significance of symbols is peculiar to each author. In the novels of Edith Wharton, for example, thresholds
play a special role [see the frame structure of Ethan Frome]. For another
novelist, they may hold no special significance whatsoever.

It is therefore fruitless for me to speculate about the
primitive unconscious thought processes of Donald Trump, someone I have never
met and, it goes without saying, have never led through a process of free
association. But the temptation is
irresistible, and as I have never been particularly adept at resisting
temptation, here goes. To preserve a
semblance of scientific rigor, I shall cast these idle fancies in the form of
predictions. As the Fall campaign
unfolds, you may check to see whether my expectations are confirmed. Since, as we all know, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, the success of my predictions will
confirm my speculations.

Trump gives every evidence of being, at a very primitive
level, both fascinated with and repelled by women. He is frightened by strong women and flattered
by submissive, conventionally attractive women. He is obsessed with women’s sexuality as a prize
to be won and worn on his sleeve, and he is deeply disgusted by women’s bodily
functions. Judging by his comments about
Megyn Kelly and Hillary Clinton, he does not sharply distinguish between
urination or excretion on the one hand and menstruation on the other, which suggests
that he is fixated at roughly the stage of psychosexual development of a three
year old. He is also morbidly sensitive
about the size of his hands and the folk wisdom concerning their connection to
the size of his sexual organ.

None of this is especially unusual, of course. All of us are in the grip of these sorts of
infantile obsessions, which through a process of sublimation we convert into
socially acceptable adult passions.
[Think, for example, of the extraordinarily aggressive psychosexual
language in which mild-mannered mathematicians talk about their proofs –
driving through a proof, ramming home a conclusion, dismissing the proofs of
competitors as “trivial.” Anyone who
does not feel the aggressive thrust of a logical demonstration, which compels
acquiescence, is not paying attention.] What
sets Trump apart from the general run of human beings is his utter inability to
control the eruption of these primitive thought processes into speech,
unmediated and unfiltered by the workings of an adult ego. It is as though he is perpetually engaged in
free association.

After watching Trump and listening to him for months, I have
become convinced that he is going to find it psychologically intolerable to
compete on the public stage with a strong, self-confident woman. If, as I anticipate, the polls show Clinton
beating him, Trump will find this simply unbearable, and his outbursts will
become ever more bizarrely inappropriate.
He has already begun making disparaging remarks about Clinton “playing
the woman card” and about her “shouting” when she gives public speeches. Soon, he will bring up Bill Clinton’s sexual
dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, and, I predict, will say that Bill strayed
because Hillary could not satisfy him sexually.
Unthinkable! you say? Wait for
it.

He will be compelled to engage in at least one or two public
debates with Clinton. If, as I hope, she
responds to his personal attacks by laughing at him, this affront to his amour proper will be intolerable to him. He is an insult comedian who has unexpectedly
risen above himself. Along about middle
October, when it becomes clear that he is going to lose badly, and to a woman,
I predict that he will go seriously bonkers.

Sorry,Bob, but your attempt to psychoanalyze Trump is a cheap shot. You could do the same with HRC and her obsession with power and militarism. Say what you will about Trump but when it comes to his critique of American militarism I'm extraordinarily grateful to him.

I think your analysis (pardon the choice of words or, rather, pardon the Freudian slip) is correct -- though it takes no great genius to predict the meltdown. And let's not forget how irritating Clinton can be. I would say Trump's unraveling is 100% guaranteed.

Robert Shore, do you really trust Trump's "critique of American militarism"? Wait till he hears that some foreign leader has made a joke about the size of his dick. That's the level Trump seems to react on, not "critique" or principle.

Would you be OK if I shared one of your articles with the WriterBeat.com community? I can provide more information about Writer Beat or answer any question, but better than anything I can say in words, please take a look at the site.

If yes, just give me an "OK": and I'll handle the rest (there is no fee).

About Me

As I observed in one of my books, in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist. I am also, rather more importantly, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a violist.